What to cut: The Federal Budget

[Dr.Traveler]

I suspect, given what IS in the Constitution, that the courts were intended to simply decide individual cases brought to them according to the prevailing law. If the lower law contradicts, say, the Constitution, then the case is decided according to the Constitution. That's fine. But I think it's inappropriate for the courts to "strike down" laws, or issue decisions declaring a law Unconstitutional.

Except that's a logical consequence of two things:

1. The Judicial Hierarchy: Case in point the Constitution lays out the Supreme Court as the Highest Court In the Land.
2. Legal Precedent: Namely that Courts tend to follow past rulings, especially those of higher courts.

So if the Supreme Court strikes down a conviction because they see the law in question as being in contradiction to the Constitution, lower courts are bound by that ruling.

In addition, if a judge outlines what it would take for a law to be Constitutional, why not?

As far as "striking down" a law, if the Supreme Court says that no one arrested for violation of a given law will be actually convicted, why keep the law on the book?

I do think that the Court should only be ruling on cases that come before them. I think asking the Courts to preemptively rule is out of hand. I thought that though before Bush v. Gore. I still think that now. Where the Court got off pre-empting the Constitutional methods to decide an election in question were beyond me.

 

[Trajan]

I didn't change the subject. You said I should look at what happened after the Dems took control of congress. I asked which bills were passed after the Dems took congress that led to the deepest post-war recession starting in December of 2007?

And while you're at it, which legislation after dems took office in January 2007 caused the housing market to begin to crash in May of 2006?

But now I remember our previous discussions, and I have no doubt you'll just duck,weave and namecall instead of facing facts.

You're changing the subject. What happened to the economy between 2001 and 2006?

It sucked, just like the last two Bush years.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - Ronald Brownstein - Politics - The Atlantic

Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.


Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.


Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.


Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.
Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle.


Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.


But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains.

Oh and what conclusion do we draw from 4 years of a dem congress, 20 months of a dem. exec. and the rise to a record level of population in poverty ?

anyway...........

so- let me understand this; during the Clinton admin. things were good, during the bush admin. things were bad....during the Reagan admin. things were bad.....during Bush 1 things were , so so?


so what conclusions or what corollary can we draw from this?

Need I run a chart on control of congress and the exec. by one party as opposed to mixed control and how the axiom holds- as to who has had, does now, and always will control the purse?

so- both houses with the exec. branch , one house with or without the exec. branch, the exec. with neither......once you are done plotting that, I think you'll find your colic stat-data dump is pretty much a bust.

 

[The Rabbi]

I see. So you're asking what I think of the government mandating that people purchase something? Not in favor of it.

Now, I should say that I differentiate between the government saying, "Everyone must purchase health insurance, period", and the government saying, "If you're going to drive on public roads, you must have liability auto insurance." This is because in the second case, you have a choice: don't drive on the public roads.

There's a huge difference: Auto insurance is mandated by state governments. This will be mandated by the feds.

On this issue, it really doesn't matter to me which government entity mandates purchasing items and services. I disapprove of the practice generally for all government entities.

That's fine and I would agree, especially if we could bring back debtor's prisons to punish people who go around without insurance, cause damage, and then can't pay for it.
But in fact the difference here is crucial. The Left wants to say the individual mandate is no big deal because after all you have to buy car insurance if you have a car. But the fact that the Constitution nowhere gives the fed gov the power to impose such a thing merely for existing is key to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's a huge difference: Auto insurance is mandated by state governments. This will be mandated by the feds.

On this issue, it really doesn't matter to me which government entity mandates purchasing items and services. I disapprove of the practice generally for all government entities.

That's fine and I would agree, especially if we could bring back debtor's prisons to punish people who go around without insurance, cause damage, and then can't pay for it.
But in fact the difference here is crucial. The Left wants to say the individual mandate is no big deal because after all you have to buy car insurance if you have a car. But the fact that the Constitution nowhere gives the fed gov the power to impose such a thing merely for existing is key to me.

You DON'T have to buy car insurance if you have a car. This is what leftists - and a lot of other people - don't understand. You have to buy liability insurance IF YOU USE THE PUBLIC ROADS. If, on the other hand, you own a multi-acre ranch and never drive your vehicle anywhere except on your own private property (for example), you don't have to have insurance. The insurance - like the need to have a driver's license - is a requirement for the privilege of sharing public use property with other citizens, not a mandate for owning a car. THAT is the difference. It's like the difference between requiring everyone to wear clothes in public, and trying to require everyone to wear clothes all the time.

 

[blu]

Can you tell us which bill the Democrats passed and Bush signed after Jan 2007 that led to the deepest recession since WW2 starting in December of that year?

Can you not change the subject when the answer to the question undermines your case?

I didn't change the subject. You said I should look at what happened after the Dems took control of congress. I asked which bills were passed after the Dems took congress that led to the deepest post-war recession starting in December of 2007?

And while you're at it, which legislation after dems took office in January 2007 caused the housing market to begin to crash in May of 2006?

But now I remember our previous discussions, and I have no doubt you'll just duck,weave and namecall instead of facing facts.

just ignore the rabbi, hes a troll

 

[blu]

So, Conservatives are talking about cutting the federal budget. Is this to reduce the deficit, or to eliminate federal programs designed to help American citizens?

Let's take a look.

One poster said eliminate the Department of Education. Fine. That will eliminate federal grants to college students. that means fewer people will have a shot at higher education. The Conservatives have already made it lucrative for corporations to outsource our manufacturing base by so called "free trade" agreements, granting Most Favored Nation status to Communist China and granting tax breaks to companies moving operations out of America. Now, they want to make damn sure the American worker is sub-par in education as well.

Oy,
Yeah, because without gov't handing out money no one would ever go to college, right?

College tuitions have risen faster than the inflation rate every year for probably the last 30. A very big factor in this is the wide availability of gov't grants and loans, which insulate families from price concerns for college.
Meanwhile the number of people in college who really have no business being there increases.
So gov't intervention in the education market (like every other market) has overall been detrimental to education, not an aid to it.

I suppose the G.I. Bill really screwed us too. All those ex-service men and women had no business being in college. All those degrees were worthless and all those careers launched as a result were shams? Please.

We see the benefits of education every day and in every sector of the economy.

did you duck his post on on purpose and where was the gi bill mentioned? outstanding student loan debt is now more than credit card due to the fact that colleges have no incentive to make tution reasonable when lenders and the government will keep handing out fatter loans.

as rabbi said, it also encourages people with no business in college to "try it out" instead of going to a community college or vocational school where they belong. when there is no risk attached to something only bad things happen

 

[blu]

I suppose the G.I. Bill really screwed us too. All those ex-service men and women had no business being in college. All those degrees were worthless and all those careers launched as a result were shams? Please.

We see the benefits of education every day and in every sector of the economy.

No, you're changing the subject because you don't like the facts I've presented. Foul. Post WW2 and the GI Bill are irrelevant to a discussion about the Dept of Education, which didnt exist back then.
We see the perils of poor education even more every day. There are hundreds of skilled jobs that go begging every day because people were tracked to college, where they wasted time and money, instead of being encouraged to develop employable skills.

My defense of the Department of Education was based, in this argument, on college grant money. You refuted that argument with:

Meanwhile the number of people in college who really have no business being there increases.
So gov't intervention in the education market (like every other market) has overall been detrimental to education, not an aid to it

And now you state:

No, you're changing the subject because you don't like the facts I've presented

Get it together, Rabbi! You can't move the goal posts, clear the field and declare victory.

states already administer grants programs as well, for instance TOPs in louisiana. even if you got rid of the dept of education, you could still have pell grants and all that, just run by each state, which would be infinitely more efficient

 

[Cecilie1200]

I suspect, given what IS in the Constitution, that the courts were intended to simply decide individual cases brought to them according to the prevailing law. If the lower law contradicts, say, the Constitution, then the case is decided according to the Constitution. That's fine. But I think it's inappropriate for the courts to "strike down" laws, or issue decisions declaring a law Unconstitutional.

Except that's a logical consequence of two things:

1. The Judicial Hierarchy: Case in point the Constitution lays out the Supreme Court as the Highest Court In the Land.
2. Legal Precedent: Namely that Courts tend to follow past rulings, especially those of higher courts.

So if the Supreme Court strikes down a conviction because they see the law in question as being in contradiction to the Constitution, lower courts are bound by that ruling.

No, they aren't. Look how often the courts feel free to not only set brand-new precedent, but create brand-new laws. Seems to me the courts only feel bound by precedent NOW is when they like the precedent in question.

In addition, if a judge outlines what it would take for a law to be Constitutional, why not?

Because it's not their job, and it's a massive usurpation of power. It is not for judges to decide what the law should be or not, what laws are appropriate or not. That is why we have elected legislatures. It is for judges to take the laws they are given and apply them to judicial cases brought before them.

As far as "striking down" a law, if the Supreme Court says that no one arrested for violation of a given law will be actually convicted, why keep the law on the book?

We have lots of vestigial laws on the books. It is properly the job of the legislature to repeal or change those laws. Deciding what laws should and should not be on the books is not the job of the judiciary.

Plus, it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to actually issue a statement that "no one arrested under this law will actually be convicted". What is appropriate is for them to say that THIS person who was arrested in THIS instance and is the defendant in THIS trial is not guilty because of THIS prevailing law.

Yeah, I know it's a very fine line to draw, but it's an important one, and I don't think it's too much to ask that people who are invested with that sort of power over others spend their time always being cognizant and respectful of that line and the boundaries between their power and usurpation of the power of others.

I do think that the Court should only be ruling on cases that come before them. I think asking the Courts to preemptively rule is out of hand. I thought that though before Bush v. Gore. I still think that now. Where the Court got off pre-empting the Constitutional methods to decide an election in question were beyond me.

The problem with Bush v. Gore was that it became a court matter at all. Election law lays out the procedures for a disputed election very clearly, and the courts aren't mentioned anywhere in them. Once a lower court inappropriately decided to insert itself into the election process and preempt written law, the Supreme Court had no choice but to reverse their decision and re-establish the correct legal precedent. As the highest court in the land and the appellate court of last resort, it is within their purview to reign in rogue lower courts. There really isn't anyone else who CAN.

 

[Bern80]

Not necessarily. The whole part that begins with "congress shall have the power to" is exactly where the list of "powers" began.

They mention duties and taxes, and apportioning in that whole first phrase. So there are specifics being mentioned there.

It's not necessarily just a "mission statement". The preamble was the mission statement.

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt. And they put "general welfare" in a sentence dealing with taxation. This tells me taxation is only to be used for the purposes of promoting the general welfare subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs.
And none of them mentions Education.

I don't know...

I interpret that first phrase to simply be the first power, with providing for the "general welfare" to be one of those powers. The rest of the powers listed in that section aren't necessarily for our "general welfare". Why is granting letters of marque and reprisal, for instance, for our general welfare? I mean fuck, we don't even DO that anymore.

Why is "laws on the subject of bankruptcies", or "tribunals inferior to the supreme court" in our general welfare?

Those don't seem all that important to the welfare of the citizens. I would place food in higher importance than those.

General welfare needs to be interpreted. But it needs to be interpreted with common sense. Education doesn't fit simply because centralizing it is not in the best interest of the nation's educational needs. It's that simple.

Localized handling of education makes sense, and THAT'S why I don't interpret general welfare to cover it.

That's where it help to read the federalist papers. The framers, mainly Madison and Jefferson assumed people could understand english. They tell us in the federalist papers that the general welfare clause refers to and ONLY to the specific, enumerated powerst that follow it. What I find extremely interesting about this clause is that it ends in a semi-colon. The framers did that on purpose. Who knew something as simple as proper punctuation could be so important. The fact is it is extremely important. When you end a phrase with a semi-colon you are intending for the things that follow to refer to that which precedes it.

So in an attempt to kill two birds with one stone (1: cutting the budget, 2: returning the fed to some semblance of constitutionality) we should cut everything out of the busget the fed has not been granted the authority to according to the constitution.

 

[8537]

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt. And they put "general welfare" in a sentence dealing with taxation. This tells me taxation is only to be used for the purposes of promoting the general welfare subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs.
And none of them mentions Education.

I don't know...

I interpret that first phrase to simply be the first power, with providing for the "general welfare" to be one of those powers. The rest of the powers listed in that section aren't necessarily for our "general welfare". Why is granting letters of marque and reprisal, for instance, for our general welfare? I mean fuck, we don't even DO that anymore.

Why is "laws on the subject of bankruptcies", or "tribunals inferior to the supreme court" in our general welfare?

Those don't seem all that important to the welfare of the citizens. I would place food in higher importance than those.

General welfare needs to be interpreted. But it needs to be interpreted with common sense. Education doesn't fit simply because centralizing it is not in the best interest of the nation's educational needs. It's that simple.

Localized handling of education makes sense, and THAT'S why I don't interpret general welfare to cover it.

That's where it help to read the federalist papers. The framers, mainly Madison and Jefferson assumed people could understand english. They tell us in the federalist papers that the general welfare clause refers to and ONLY to the specific, enumerated powerst that follow it.

Can you show where Jefferson (or Madison) wrote in the Federalist papers that the general welfare clause only refers to the enumerated powers? I'm not saying it's not there, I've just never seen it.

 

[Dick Tuck]

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt. And they put "general welfare" in a sentence dealing with taxation. This tells me taxation is only to be used for the purposes of promoting the general welfare subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs.
And none of them mentions Education.

I don't know...

I interpret that first phrase to simply be the first power, with providing for the "general welfare" to be one of those powers. The rest of the powers listed in that section aren't necessarily for our "general welfare". Why is granting letters of marque and reprisal, for instance, for our general welfare? I mean fuck, we don't even DO that anymore.

Why is "laws on the subject of bankruptcies", or "tribunals inferior to the supreme court" in our general welfare?

Those don't seem all that important to the welfare of the citizens. I would place food in higher importance than those.

General welfare needs to be interpreted. But it needs to be interpreted with common sense. Education doesn't fit simply because centralizing it is not in the best interest of the nation's educational needs. It's that simple.

Localized handling of education makes sense, and THAT'S why I don't interpret general welfare to cover it.

That's where it help to read the federalist papers. The framers, mainly Madison and Jefferson assumed people could understand english. They tell us in the federalist papers that the general welfare clause refers to and ONLY to the specific, enumerated powerst that follow it. What I find extremely interesting about this clause is that it ends in a semi-colon. The framers did that on purpose. Who knew something as simple as proper punctuation could be so important. The fact is it is extremely important. When you end a phrase with a semi-colon you are intending for the things that follow to refer to that which precedes it.

So in an attempt to kill two birds with one stone (1: cutting the budget, 2: returning the fed to some semblance of constitutionality) we should cut everything out of the busget the fed has not been granted the authority to according to the constitution.

"english" ought to be capitalized. Here's a refresher for you. Jefferson was in Paris during the constitutional convention, so he doesn't matter. There was a huge debate regarding the "general welfare" clause at the convention, and Madison and lost. Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists prevailed on that clause, and Hamilton makes quite clear what that clause means. The bottom line is our founders decided that "general welfare" means whatever congress believes contributes to our greater good. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you don't like what congress enacts, you can vote them out.

I'm really getting tired of presenting this same link, but people seem to want to always pretend "general welfare" doesn't mean general welfare. I challenge anyone to show a single case argued pro/con on general welfare, where the side claiming it doesn't mean what it means won.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
​

OTOH, Madison did get his and Jefferson's Virginia Rights of Man into the amended constitution as a compromise.

 

[Bern80]

I don't know...

I interpret that first phrase to simply be the first power, with providing for the "general welfare" to be one of those powers. The rest of the powers listed in that section aren't necessarily for our "general welfare". Why is granting letters of marque and reprisal, for instance, for our general welfare? I mean fuck, we don't even DO that anymore.

Why is "laws on the subject of bankruptcies", or "tribunals inferior to the supreme court" in our general welfare?

Those don't seem all that important to the welfare of the citizens. I would place food in higher importance than those.

General welfare needs to be interpreted. But it needs to be interpreted with common sense. Education doesn't fit simply because centralizing it is not in the best interest of the nation's educational needs. It's that simple.

Localized handling of education makes sense, and THAT'S why I don't interpret general welfare to cover it.

That's where it help to read the federalist papers. The framers, mainly Madison and Jefferson assumed people could understand english. They tell us in the federalist papers that the general welfare clause refers to and ONLY to the specific, enumerated powerst that follow it.

Can you show where Jefferson (or Madison) wrote in the Federalist papers that the general welfare clause only refers to the enumerated powers? I'm not saying it's not there, I've just never seen it.

Why yes I can.....

The Federalist #41

Here is probably the most pertinent paragraph

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

 

[Dick Tuck]

That's where it help to read the federalist papers. The framers, mainly Madison and Jefferson assumed people could understand english. They tell us in the federalist papers that the general welfare clause refers to and ONLY to the specific, enumerated powerst that follow it.

Can you show where Jefferson (or Madison) wrote in the Federalist papers that the general welfare clause only refers to the enumerated powers? I'm not saying it's not there, I've just never seen it.

Why yes I can.....

The Federalist #41

Here is probably the most pertinent paragraph

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

That was Madison's argument, and he lost the debate.

 

[Bern80]

I don't know...

I interpret that first phrase to simply be the first power, with providing for the "general welfare" to be one of those powers. The rest of the powers listed in that section aren't necessarily for our "general welfare". Why is granting letters of marque and reprisal, for instance, for our general welfare? I mean fuck, we don't even DO that anymore.

Why is "laws on the subject of bankruptcies", or "tribunals inferior to the supreme court" in our general welfare?

Those don't seem all that important to the welfare of the citizens. I would place food in higher importance than those.

General welfare needs to be interpreted. But it needs to be interpreted with common sense. Education doesn't fit simply because centralizing it is not in the best interest of the nation's educational needs. It's that simple.

Localized handling of education makes sense, and THAT'S why I don't interpret general welfare to cover it.

That's where it help to read the federalist papers. The framers, mainly Madison and Jefferson assumed people could understand english. They tell us in the federalist papers that the general welfare clause refers to and ONLY to the specific, enumerated powerst that follow it. What I find extremely interesting about this clause is that it ends in a semi-colon. The framers did that on purpose. Who knew something as simple as proper punctuation could be so important. The fact is it is extremely important. When you end a phrase with a semi-colon you are intending for the things that follow to refer to that which precedes it.

So in an attempt to kill two birds with one stone (1: cutting the budget, 2: returning the fed to some semblance of constitutionality) we should cut everything out of the busget the fed has not been granted the authority to according to the constitution.

"english" ought to be capitalized. Here's a refresher for you. Jefferson was in Paris during the constitutional convention, so he doesn't matter. There was a huge debate regarding the "general welfare" clause at the convention, and Madison and lost. Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists prevailed on that clause, and Hamilton makes quite clear what that clause means. The bottom line is our founders decided that "general welfare" means whatever congress believes contributes to our greater good. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you don't like what congress enacts, you can vote them out.

I'm really getting tired of presenting this same link, but people seem to want to always pretend "general welfare" doesn't mean general welfare. I challenge anyone to show a single case argued pro/con on general welfare, where the side claiming it doesn't mean what it means won.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
​

OTOH, Madison did get his and Jefferson's Virginia Rights of Man into the amended constitution as a compromise.

I really don't see how Hamilton simply stating his opinion of the clause constitutes him 'winning'. A court ruling on the matter is fairly meaningless to me. You realy don't see the irony in a federal court interpreting the clause in a way that gives them more power, when it's intent was to give them less? Hamilton, in my opinion, kinda of weasels out of the obvious problem with his argument. If the general welfare clause is what he says it is, why did a specific list following it that clearly refers to that clause make it into the constitution? He didn't 'win' because of the court ruling. The court simply ignored the constitution as they do more and more over time.

 

[Dick Tuck]

That's where it help to read the federalist papers. The framers, mainly Madison and Jefferson assumed people could understand english. They tell us in the federalist papers that the general welfare clause refers to and ONLY to the specific, enumerated powerst that follow it. What I find extremely interesting about this clause is that it ends in a semi-colon. The framers did that on purpose. Who knew something as simple as proper punctuation could be so important. The fact is it is extremely important. When you end a phrase with a semi-colon you are intending for the things that follow to refer to that which precedes it.

So in an attempt to kill two birds with one stone (1: cutting the budget, 2: returning the fed to some semblance of constitutionality) we should cut everything out of the busget the fed has not been granted the authority to according to the constitution.

"english" ought to be capitalized. Here's a refresher for you. Jefferson was in Paris during the constitutional convention, so he doesn't matter. There was a huge debate regarding the "general welfare" clause at the convention, and Madison and lost. Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists prevailed on that clause, and Hamilton makes quite clear what that clause means. The bottom line is our founders decided that "general welfare" means whatever congress believes contributes to our greater good. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you don't like what congress enacts, you can vote them out.

I'm really getting tired of presenting this same link, but people seem to want to always pretend "general welfare" doesn't mean general welfare. I challenge anyone to show a single case argued pro/con on general welfare, where the side claiming it doesn't mean what it means won.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
​

OTOH, Madison did get his and Jefferson's Virginia Rights of Man into the amended constitution as a compromise.

I really don't see how Hamilton simply stating his opinion of the clause constitutes him 'winning'. A court ruling on the matter is fairly meaningless to me. You realy don't see the irony in a federal court interpreting the clause in a way that gives them more power, when it's intent was to give them less? Hamilton, in my opinion, kinda of weasels out of the obvious problem with his argument. If the general welfare clause is what he says it is, why did a specific list following it that clearly refers to that clause make it into the constitution? He didn't 'win' because of the court ruling. The court simply ignored the constitution as they do more and more over time.

It's not only his opinion. It's the political position that prevailed during the constitutional convention. I don't see what bring up the losing side of the argument, that didn't want the "general welfare" clause in Article 1, section 8 has anything to do with anything. That position really comes down to bonehead stupid. Madison and the anti-Federalists won some arguments and lost some. They lost big time when founders Washington and Hamilton got the general welfare clause incorporated into out constitution. I'd also add that I'd add more credence to the words of the winner of that debate over the losers. I also wouldn't bother bringing up Jefferson, since he wasn't even in the states when the anti-federalists lost that one.

 

[Bern80]

"english" ought to be capitalized. Here's a refresher for you. Jefferson was in Paris during the constitutional convention, so he doesn't matter. There was a huge debate regarding the "general welfare" clause at the convention, and Madison and lost. Washington, Hamilton, and the Federalists prevailed on that clause, and Hamilton makes quite clear what that clause means. The bottom line is our founders decided that "general welfare" means whatever congress believes contributes to our greater good. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you don't like what congress enacts, you can vote them out.

I'm really getting tired of presenting this same link, but people seem to want to always pretend "general welfare" doesn't mean general welfare. I challenge anyone to show a single case argued pro/con on general welfare, where the side claiming it doesn't mean what it means won.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures
5 Dec. 1791Papers 10:302--4

A Question has been made concerning the Constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare." The terms "general Welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which Preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues shou'd have been restricted within narrower limits than the "General Welfare" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
​

OTOH, Madison did get his and Jefferson's Virginia Rights of Man into the amended constitution as a compromise.

I really don't see how Hamilton simply stating his opinion of the clause constitutes him 'winning'. A court ruling on the matter is fairly meaningless to me. You realy don't see the irony in a federal court interpreting the clause in a way that gives them more power, when it's intent was to give them less? Hamilton, in my opinion, kinda of weasels out of the obvious problem with his argument. If the general welfare clause is what he says it is, why did a specific list following it that clearly refers to that clause make it into the constitution? He didn't 'win' because of the court ruling. The court simply ignored the constitution as they do more and more over time.

It's not only his opinion. It's the political position that prevailed during the constitutional convention. I don't see what bring up the losing side of the argument, that didn't want the "general welfare" clause in Article 1, section 8 has anything to do with anything. That position really comes down to bonehead stupid. Madison and the anti-Federalists won some arguments and lost some. They lost big time when founders Washington and Hamilton got the general welfare clause incorporated into out constitution. I'd also add that I'd add more credence to the words of the winner of that debate over the losers. I also wouldn't bother bringing up Jefferson, since he wasn't even in the states when the anti-federalists lost that one.

Again, what constitutes them 'winning'? Because it seems to me if they 'won' the enumarated powers should not have made it into the constitution.

I see two interpretations of the general welfare clause that appears at the start of Article 1 Section 8. One would be that the clause refers specfically and only to the enumerated powers that follow it.

The only other way to interpret it is to first pretend the enumerated powers that follow it aren't there and take it on it's face. That government can collect taxes for the purpose of providing for the commone defense and general welfare. Leaving open a wide variety of things congress deems they can spend money on. But again that second interpretation would render the enumerated powers that follow it, meaningless and beg the question why they'er there. Is it your contention that it is something Hamilton and co. compromised on and there was just some gentleman's agreement that even though it's there the intent was for those powers to not mean anything?

 

[Care4all]

Get rid of all Energy corporate welfare....no more special tax breaks or credits, no more laws that allow them to circumvent their taxes due etc.

Cut our largest department of discretionary spending- the defense budget, by at least 20%....culling out useless programs and waste.

Change our Medicare pill bill so to allow importation of drugs from Canada for the States, and to allow negotiating "bulk discount purchases" with PHARMA.

Kill the CHIPS program....health care for children, ONCE the health care bill comes in to effect, and families have health care due to this, which will cover their children....cut all the gvt workers hired for CHIPS.

Kill all Pork Barrel projects, in single locations that do not relate to the entire country...like alabama putting up a statue of Thor, with federal money, or the Bridge to nowhere in Alaska with federal money etc...

Reduce the benefits and perks of government employees so that they are equivalent to the average salary and benefits of the private sector for that particular field.

Get rid of gvt credit cards to employees, have them get a check upfront or get reimbursed for the legitimate expenses, to reduce the abuse that has been happening, like paying for girlfriends boob jobs or strip joints.

Decriminalize marijuana, and reduce the size of the DEA and reduce the spending to jail these people.

No contracts to any private business, without "bidding"....basically, eliminate ALL 'no bid' contracts.

Eliminate all loopholes and laws that reward corporations for headquartering their companies in a small building with just PO Boxes in Bermuda etc, to avoid taxes.

Eliminate all tax loopholes for corporations to move their businesses and jobs overseas.

Eliminate the welfare ABUSERS....not all welfare for those truly in need, but for those that work the system that truly are NOT in need....yes, this will be difficult, but I am certain it can be done or improved.

Make all federal buildings "green"....put solar panels, geothermal heat pumps etc, so that they do not have to spend huge amounts on keeping them heated, lit, or cooled....yes..."you have to spend some, to save some"....review the long term picture and net savings to justify it.

if there are any more Social Security surpluses, use these surpluses to pay down the Public debt, so to reduce our yearly +$300 billion dollar "interest payment" to foreigners....and NOT to use just for more spending in the budget.

*Get rid of Faith based initiatives...or at least make these entities BID for specific things so that the entity with the best prices wins the money, and don't just hand them the money.

 

[Bern80]

Get rid of all Energy corporate welfare....no more special tax breaks or credits, no more laws that allow them to circumvent their taxes due etc.

Cut our largest department of discretionary spending- the defense budget, by at least 20%....culling out useless programs and waste.

Change our Medicare pill bill so to allow importation of drugs from Canada for the States, and to allow negotiating "bulk discount purchases" with PHARMA.

Kill the CHIPS program....health care for children, ONCE the health care bill comes in to effect, and families have health care due to this, which will cover their children....cut all the gvt workers hired for CHIPS.

Kill all Pork Barrel projects, in single locations that do not relate to the entire country...like alabama putting up a statue of Thor, with federal money, or the Bridge to nowhere in Alaska with federal money etc...

Reduce the benefits and perks of government employees so that they are equivalent to the average salary and benefits of the private sector for that particular field.

Get rid of gvt credit cards to employees, have them get a check upfront or get reimbursed for the legitimate expenses, to reduce the abuse that has been happening, like paying for girlfriends boob jobs or strip joints.

Decriminalize marijuana, and reduce the size of the DEA and reduce the spending to jail these people.

No contracts to any private business, without "bidding"....basically, eliminate ALL 'no bid' contracts.

Eliminate all loopholes and laws that reward corporations for headquartering their companies in a small building with just PO Boxes in Bermuda etc, to avoid taxes.

Eliminate all tax loopholes for corporations to move their businesses and jobs overseas.

Eliminate the welfare ABUSERS....not all welfare for those truly in need, but for those that work the system that truly are NOT in need....yes, this will be difficult, but I am certain it can be done or improved.

Make all federal buildings "green"....put solar panels, geothermal heat pumps etc, so that they do not have to spend huge amounts on keeping them heated, lit, or cooled....yes..."you have to spend some, to save some"....review the long term picture and net savings to justify it.

if there are any more Social Security surpluses, use these surpluses to pay down the Public debt, so to reduce our yearly +$300 billion dollar "interest payment" to foreigners....and NOT to use just for more spending in the budget.

I would agree with quite a few of those. All of the one regarding a tax my suggestion would be greatly simplify the tax code. We don't need to get into a debate about the fair tax, but one thing is for certain; the elimination of income tax, replaced by a natoinal sales tax on the end user sale of everything would greatly simplify the tax code and eliminate all of those tax loop holes you speak of.

 

[The Rabbi]

I would agree with quite a few of those. All of the one regarding a tax my suggestion would be greatly simplify the tax code. We don't need to get into a debate about the fair tax, but one thing is for certain; the elimination of income tax, replaced by a natoinal sales tax on the end user sale of everything would greatly simplify the tax code and eliminate all of those tax loop holes you speak of.

Actually just dropping the tax rate to two or even one level and eliminating all deductions would pretty much take care of that.
Heck, make it even simpler and just drop the current tax code but retain the AMT as THE tax code. It isn't ideal but it has the virtues of simplicity and political viability.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt.

The powers of Congress were framed to be ambiguous, and it wasn't by accident.